Scribd
Upload
18 views

Casp Systematic Review Checklist

Uploaded by

Chika Jessica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views

Casp Systematic Review Checklist

Uploaded by

Chika Jessica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Systematic

Review

How to use this appraisal tool: Three broad issues need to be


considered when appraising a systematic review study:

Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)


What are the results? (Section B)
Will the results help locally? (Section C)

The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think
about these issues systematically. The first two questions are screening
questions and can be answered quickly. If the answer to both is “yes”, it is
worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There is some degree of
overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a “yes”, “no” or
“can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts are
given after each question. These are designed to remind you why the
question is important. Record your reasons for your answers in the spaces
provided.

About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational


pedagogic tools, as part of a workshop setting, therefore we do not
suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists (randomised
controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA 'Users’ guides to
the medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and
Cook DJ), and piloted with health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop
and pilot the checklist and the workshop format with which it would be
used. Over the years overall adjustments have been made to the format,
but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic format
continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.:
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist
i.e. Systematic Review) Checklist. [online] Available at: URL. Accessed:
Date Accessed.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of OAP Ltd www.casp-uk.net


www.casp-uk.net

[email protected]

Summertown Pavilion, Middle


Way Oxford OX2 7LG

©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution –


Non-Commercial-Share A like. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ www.casp-uk.net

2
Paper for appraisal and reference:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Section A: Are the results of the review valid?

1. Did the review address Yes HINT: An issue can be ‘focused’ In


a clearly focused terms of
question? Can’t Tell • the population studied
• the intervention given
No • the outcome considered

Comments:

2. Did the authors look Yes HINT: ‘The best sort of studies’
for the right type of would
papers? Can’t Tell  address the review’s question
 have an appropriate study
No
design (usually RCTs for papers
evaluating interventions)

Comments:

Is it worth continuing?

3. Do you think all the Yes HINT: Look for


important, relevant •which bibliographic databases
studies were Can’t Tell were used
included? •follow up from reference lists
No
•personal contact with experts
•unpublished as well as
published studies
•non-English language studies

Comments:

3
4. Did the review’s Yes HINT: The authors need to
authors do enough to consider the rigour of the studies
assess quality of the Can’t Tell they have identified. Lack of
included studies? rigour may affect the studies’
No results (“All that glisters is not
gold” Merchant of Venice – Act II
Scene 7)

Comments:

5. If the results of the Yes HINT: Consider whether


review have been •results were similar from study
combined, was it Can’t Tell to study
reasonable to do so? •results of all the included
No studies are clearly displayed
•results of different studies are
similar
•reasons for any variations in
results are discussed

Comments:

Section B: What are the results?

6. What are the overall results of the review? HINT: Consider


•If you are clear about the
review’s ‘bottom line’ results
•what these are (numerically if
appropriate)
•how were the results
expressed (NNT, odds ratio
etc.)

Comments:

7. How precise are the results? HINT: Look at the confidence

4
intervals, if given

Comments:

Section C: Will the results help locally?

8. Can the results be Yes HINT: Consider whether


applied to the local  the patients covered by the
population? Can’t Tell review could be sufficiently
different to your population to
No cause concern
 your local setting is likely to
differ much from that of the
review

Comments:

9. Were all important Yes HINT: Consider whether


outcomes considered?  there is other information you
Can’t Tell would like to have seen

No

Comments:

10. Are the benefits Yes HINT: Consider


worth the harms and  even if this is not addressed by
costs? Can’t Tell the review, what do you think?

No

Comments:

You might also like